It would be nice if after a few victories if enough of a "criminal pattern" could be established that a class action suit could target both the RIAA, their members and specifically their Laywers...
Reading the article, the crux of MS's concern is that some 3rd party (e.g., start-up) will store your username/password and thus weaken security as that is not "a best practice." Not that MS follows many good security practices... assuming the start-ups didn't store the user name and password, and there isn't any real reason to either... all should be good.
MS also makes the claim that the users data is the users' data and then out of the other side of their mouth make a claim about how it took them 12 years to build up all the data in Hotmail and don't want to share it with a start up... (unless they get favorable terms).
Then they also talk about using the Live Windows tech to be able to share contacts across applications... that is something I DON'T WANT. I mean is I'm happy to bring a few across when I sign up for some new service like NING or Linked-In, but then I don't want them cross breeding with each other with or without my permission. I want to keep my business contacts seperated from my family contacts and my personal contacts and I want to keep my b2b contacts seperated from the customers I work with on a b2c basis.
This is a last in a long seris of mis-steps by MS to try to limit users and gain monopoly; in this case of users data. Of the many things I do have some trust in MS for (like I trust they make a good word processor and presentation software), I would NEVER trust them on a security matter nor would I trust them to develop and mantain open standards.
Let's hope users leave hotmail in droves over time due to market forces:)
I think EIC is US thing? I'm not really sure. I'm fairly sure that the bulk of the world's poor, up to 5 Billion of them in places like China, India, Africa, etc. don't get EIC.
This is huge news. I've always said we need a computer that many people in the world can afford. With 5-6 Billion People a 600 to 700 machine is so far beyond their reach. I'd really like to see a $25 machine but $75 great.
My theory, un-tested is that most family's can't afford to budget more than 1 weeks income every 3-4 years for a computer. Of course the wealthy can do whatever they wish. Personally I spend $800 on a monitor every 5-7 years and $400 to $500 on a new CPU/Box every 14 months.
With a price at $75 I would expect that means there is at leaset 1 BILLION people whose family can now afford such a device, and may be more than that. I'd like a machine that 4 Billion people could afford every 3-5 years. They we will have a real shot a planet wide culture. Today we have A few 100 million to a Billion people spending most of the $$, most of the energy, etc.
Putting a cheap computer in their home will not change economics but it can help teach them to read, and give them a path to education, which might take a few generations but will help all over time.
Personally low powered desktops would be better than laptops esp. a model that could use the TV screen to lower costs, for those homes that have TVs.
As a fan of SciFi, I always love the "mad hacker" who takes a bunch of old parts and kludges together something interesting. We are a long way from that... We have always had PCs. You buy them with an MS OS and you can re-purpose them into Linux devices of various types.
But I love the idea of taking older form factor cell phones, which are really abandoned tech, and wiping out the older operating environment and replacing it with Android. It's not quite the way the built R2D2 in star wars but it's a step in that direction.
Not supporting the older files is also good FUD about upgrading to new apps which support "OPEN" file formats, which we know MS is trying to hard to push through international standard bodies. This open formats are designed to avoid extactly these types problems, ""E.g., silly users making use of older insure file formats."" Microsoft saves the day once again!!;)
Watching Clinton's war in the Balkans (sp?) we where hitting lots of tanks from the air but after the war it turned out we were mostly hitting decoys. Decoys are cheap and you can even give them a nice IR glow. In the first GW, we couldn't find the SCUDS.
This COIL seems like a really great system in terms of what it could do, the real question is how many valid targets will there be? And at what cost?
What is the cost per shot? Is it cheap enough to clear mines or pop tanks?
It could be used to take out some big buildings and ships, but that wouldn't help in our two current wars.
I could see it being helpful if we ever get a hot war with China, but if things get that hot, it's not going to be a cake walk. The Chinese don't even care about killing their own civilians.
It sounds likey because of recent trials where it was questions if the person really shared the music or not.. they showing this as evidence, that Kazaa was set to share these files and some "proof" these 11 files where in fact shared..
I think they are thinking... the ship is sinking so a) let's make as much $$ as we can and b) let's slow the sinking as much as possible. So they use the courts, congress, and try to push for DCMA laws around the world...
If you transfer you data to a third party, there is really little chance that someone isn't going to have access to it, including Admin. users on the system.
If you really need to use it you could of course encrypt before you upload.
Home based RAID systems now sell for $300-$500 with TeraByte size drives. Or put the data on a Flash drive and store it in your bank vault.
There is a lot to be said about educated consumers...
There was a time when you first went to college you got your first email account... and it was all bright and shinny...
Today's kids may or may not have excellent email but they certainly have it and they certainly know what to expect from an account in terms of storage (a few gigs or more), spend, etc.
Plus in the perfect world Google would pay the colleges to mandate their use, but $$ aside, my guess is if a kid has been using AOL mail, etc., they are not so likely to change to the college system.. but whomever switches to the college system (assuming it's one of the public providers) they are likely to keep that account for long time... (IMHO).
IHMO, a RNG is really a hard problem because if it isn't truly random you weaken the crypto. IHMO, you really need to use a physical source to generate the randomness and not some direct method as a chip, esp. a built in RNG function. A physical source might be radioactive decay but there are other things that could be sampled.
Microsoft wants' to be the gate-keeper on every electronic device; phone, game console, computer, media player, etc. They have always coveted that and in some ways that has always been their master plan.
That Apple is doing well in phones and MP3 player surely bothers them, but it can't bother them as much a Google who seem to have enough smart people that they can launch a new product or service without huge bugs and have very fast to market updates.
That's the two things MS has never been able to do; a) get most of it right in the first release and b) keep on getting it right release after release. Their MO has been to get it right between the 3rd and 5th major release... while Google product seem work well in beta..
I am quoting from the motions files by the judge and Doe #3; in this case a claim by Doe #3.
Doe #3 quotes a fair amount of case law so while their maybe other issues at stake, and other law(s) that apply, commercial gain is one of the major tests (as per Doe #3's filing).
One might imagine that since most users have MS OS on them and use MS Applications and need to print documents created in those Apps that they are using the embedded linux they are "talking to" printer drivers running on XP, Vista, etc. and perhaps MS has some patented technology related to that, since they don't like open and freely available protocals. Of course that is only speculation on my part..
According to the motion filed by Doe #3, in your example, their has not been a violation of copyright law. In part, the major test is the person who is "handing out the copies" has to be doing so for commerical gain. Perhaps with your example, you could claim the web site making a gain, but in the case of the p2p system, it's clear that the users are not gaining $$ from the copies. Also the motion claimed it's not illegal to offer to sell someone's work, it only becomes illegal when the transaction happens.
I read through both the judges order and the motion filed by Doe #3; it's good reading.
The two most strong points for me are:
a) they can't lump all the Does together; that wouldn't hinder the RIAA much but still having to file 25 or 100 or 1000 or 50000 cases, each one with filing fees, would have some effect but as Doe #3 claims, it would also serve and advance the interest of justice for each of the Does to be treated on a case by case basis, with their own juries, lawyers, etc. [A Doe who actually illegally sold copies of music wouldn't get lumped in with someone who had their ID stolen or their IP address spoofed].
b) that for someone to violate the copyright law, one of the major tests is you have to do it for a) commerical gain and b) merely offering to sell a copy isn't a violation (you have to actually sell it). It's clear that the P2P system is anything but a commerical sales system; everyone admits the copies are free; it's also fairly clear, to anyone who wants to really research the matter, the only party that gets commerical gain out of the P2P sharing of media is the copyright holders.
PS.
Many decades of radio station play of records as well as song "play" on MTV, VH1, etc. has shown that when people are exposed to new sounds/songs, etc. they buy them; this was the novelity of MTV, kids started buying songs that didn't get played on the local radio.
So even if there wasn't any evidence that P2P directly boosts sales of songs, CDs, etc, 50+ years of radio play has proven that point; listening to a song boosts its sales.
It has proven it to the point that many members of the RIAA have illegally (in the past and in the present) used a system called Payola, which pays radio stations to play songs by a particular artist repeatedly more than other artists for commerical gain; they do this because they believe the more their songs are played the more $$ they will make.
Copyright holders spend 100's of thousands to mulitple millions of dollars to produce "music videos", engage in Payola, advertise to DJs and radio station programmers, etc. all for the purpose of allowing the music to be played on the air or on TV/Cable all in the hope that people will buy the music. Clearly they could save those $$, let P2P do it's work, and accrue the savings in production, Payola, etc. to any lost of royalities.
In fairness not deserved by the RIAA, their is a difference between listening to a song on the radio and making a copy of it via P2P but in fairness to the public, owning a physical copy of a song is not the same as having a 3rd rate digital copy, that may or may not be 100% as the artist intended.
Given that they are not a monopoly, I think it's within their right to set up contracts the way they want. Before you think this is a Trolling comment. The other side of the coin is why would anyone in the world with other companies to choice from, be willing to sign that contract?
I certainly wouldn't. Let's hope this gets' some real main stream press.
The "value" of patents to most companies is that they can tell their investors and shareholders they have one. It lulls those stakeholders into feeling that the business has a way of defending itself against would-be copycats.
There is a set fee for use of records in jukeboxes. It's fairly low and basically an artist can't prevent you from putting their record in your jukebox, as long as your paying that standard fee.
#1 is more focus on Portfolio's of work that on tests, etc.
It's not wrong to use someone else's words, it's only wrong not to quote them...
#2 is better tools for quoting. When you cut and paste from the web to "your term paper" the cut and paste should include META data, about where you got the "data/words" from and should automatically create a "academically acceptable attribution."
When the issue is that you have copied an entire paper or sections of someone else's work, there is nothing technology can do, per se, this is a moral or ethnical issue; when you had to pay $$ and order a paper through the mail, this probably was a bit of a natural barrier to this behavior. But now that it's online its only human nature to "cheat."
Slashdot Mirror
It would be nice if after a few victories if enough of a "criminal pattern" could be established that a class action suit could target both the RIAA, their members and specifically their Laywers...
Reading the article, the crux of MS's concern is that some 3rd party (e.g., start-up) will store your username/password and thus weaken security as that is not "a best practice." Not that MS follows many good security practices... assuming the start-ups didn't store the user name and password, and there isn't any real reason to either... all should be good.
:)
MS also makes the claim that the users data is the users' data and then out of the other side of their mouth make a claim about how it took them 12 years to build up all the data in Hotmail and don't want to share it with a start up... (unless they get favorable terms).
Then they also talk about using the Live Windows tech to be able to share contacts across applications... that is something I DON'T WANT. I mean is I'm happy to bring a few across when I sign up for some new service like NING or Linked-In, but then I don't want them cross breeding with each other with or without my permission. I want to keep my business contacts seperated from my family contacts and my personal contacts and I want to keep my b2b contacts seperated from the customers I work with on a b2c basis.
This is a last in a long seris of mis-steps by MS to try to limit users and gain monopoly; in this case of users data. Of the many things I do have some trust in MS for (like I trust they make a good word processor and presentation software), I would NEVER trust them on a security matter nor would I trust them to develop and mantain open standards.
Let's hope users leave hotmail in droves over time due to market forces
In NY State, the law is very clear. Most of the data can't be retained, and that can be, can't be s
I think EIC is US thing? I'm not really sure. I'm fairly sure that the bulk of the world's poor, up to 5 Billion of them in places like China, India, Africa, etc. don't get EIC.
This is huge news. I've always said we need a computer that many people in the world can afford. With 5-6 Billion People a 600 to 700 machine is so far beyond their reach. I'd really like to see a $25 machine but $75 great.
My theory, un-tested is that most family's can't afford to budget more than 1 weeks income every 3-4 years for a computer. Of course the wealthy can do whatever they wish. Personally I spend $800 on a monitor every 5-7 years and $400 to $500 on a new CPU/Box every 14 months.
With a price at $75 I would expect that means there is at leaset 1 BILLION people whose family can now afford such a device, and may be more than that. I'd like a machine that 4 Billion people could afford every 3-5 years. They we will have a real shot a planet wide culture. Today we have A few 100 million to a Billion people spending most of the $$, most of the energy, etc.
Putting a cheap computer in their home will not change economics but it can help teach them to read, and give them a path to education, which might take a few generations but will help all over time.
Personally low powered desktops would be better than laptops esp. a model that could use the TV screen to lower costs, for those homes that have TVs.
As a fan of SciFi, I always love the "mad hacker" who takes a bunch of old parts and kludges together something interesting. We are a long way from that... We have always had PCs. You buy them with an MS OS and you can re-purpose them into Linux devices of various types.
But I love the idea of taking older form factor cell phones, which are really abandoned tech, and wiping out the older operating environment and replacing it with Android. It's not quite the way the built R2D2 in star wars but it's a step in that direction.
- liberating commodity hardware
- installing commodity software
- creating something interesting and useful.
Not supporting the older files is also good FUD about upgrading to new apps which support "OPEN" file formats, which we know MS is trying to hard to push through international standard bodies. This open formats are designed to avoid extactly these types problems, ""E.g., silly users making use of older insure file formats."" Microsoft saves the day once again!! ;)
Watching Clinton's war in the Balkans (sp?) we where hitting lots of tanks from the air but after the war it turned out we were mostly hitting decoys. Decoys are cheap and you can even give them a nice IR glow. In the first GW, we couldn't find the SCUDS.
This COIL seems like a really great system in terms of what it could do, the real question is how many valid targets will there be? And at what cost?
What is the cost per shot? Is it cheap enough to clear mines or pop tanks?
It could be used to take out some big buildings and ships, but that wouldn't help in our two current wars.
I could see it being helpful if we ever get a hot war with China, but if things get that hot, it's not going to be a cake walk. The Chinese don't even care about killing their own civilians.
It sounds likey because of recent trials where it was questions if the person really shared the music or not.. they showing this as evidence, that Kazaa was set to share these files and some "proof" these 11 files where in fact shared..
I think they are thinking... the ship is sinking so a) let's make as much $$ as we can and b) let's slow the sinking as much as possible. So they use the courts, congress, and try to push for DCMA laws around the world...
If you transfer you data to a third party, there is really little chance that someone isn't going to have access to it, including Admin. users on the system.
If you really need to use it you could of course encrypt before you upload.
Home based RAID systems now sell for $300-$500 with TeraByte size drives. Or put the data on a Flash drive and store it in your bank vault.
There is a lot to be said about educated consumers...
There was a time when you first went to college you got your first email account... and it was all bright and shinny...
Today's kids may or may not have excellent email but they certainly have it and they certainly know what to expect from an account in terms of storage (a few gigs or more), spend, etc.
Plus in the perfect world Google would pay the colleges to mandate their use, but $$ aside, my guess is if a kid has been using AOL mail, etc., they are not so likely to change to the college system.. but whomever switches to the college system (assuming it's one of the public providers) they are likely to keep that account for long time... (IMHO).
IHMO, a RNG is really a hard problem because if it isn't truly random you weaken the crypto. IHMO, you really need to use a physical source to generate the randomness and not some direct method as a chip, esp. a built in RNG function. A physical source might be radioactive decay but there are other things that could be sampled.
Microsoft wants' to be the gate-keeper on every electronic device; phone, game console, computer, media player, etc. They have always coveted that and in some ways that has always been their master plan.
That Apple is doing well in phones and MP3 player surely bothers them, but it can't bother them as much a Google who seem to have enough smart people that they can launch a new product or service without huge bugs and have very fast to market updates.
That's the two things MS has never been able to do; a) get most of it right in the first release and b) keep on getting it right release after release. Their MO has been to get it right between the 3rd and 5th major release... while Google product seem work well in beta..
I am quoting from the motions files by the judge and Doe #3; in this case a claim by Doe #3.
Doe #3 quotes a fair amount of case law so while their maybe other issues at stake, and other law(s) that apply, commercial gain is one of the major tests (as per Doe #3's filing).
One might imagine that since most users have MS OS on them and use MS Applications and need to print documents created in those Apps that they are using the embedded linux they are "talking to" printer drivers running on XP, Vista, etc. and perhaps MS has some patented technology related to that, since they don't like open and freely available protocals. Of course that is only speculation on my part..
According to the motion filed by Doe #3, in your example, their has not been a violation of copyright law. In part, the major test is the person who is "handing out the copies" has to be doing so for commerical gain. Perhaps with your example, you could claim the web site making a gain, but in the case of the p2p system, it's clear that the users are not gaining $$ from the copies. Also the motion claimed it's not illegal to offer to sell someone's work, it only becomes illegal when the transaction happens.
I read through both the judges order and the motion filed by Doe #3; it's good reading.
The two most strong points for me are:
a) they can't lump all the Does together; that wouldn't hinder the RIAA much but still having to file 25 or 100 or 1000 or 50000 cases, each one with filing fees, would have some effect but as Doe #3 claims, it would also serve and advance the interest of justice for each of the Does to be treated on a case by case basis, with their own juries, lawyers, etc. [A Doe who actually illegally sold copies of music wouldn't get lumped in with someone who had their ID stolen or their IP address spoofed].
b) that for someone to violate the copyright law, one of the major tests is you have to do it for a) commerical gain and b) merely offering to sell a copy isn't a violation (you have to actually sell it). It's clear that the P2P system is anything but a commerical sales system; everyone admits the copies are free; it's also fairly clear, to anyone who wants to really research the matter, the only party that gets commerical gain out of the P2P sharing of media is the copyright holders.
PS.
Many decades of radio station play of records as well as song "play" on MTV, VH1, etc. has shown that when people are exposed to new sounds/songs, etc. they buy them; this was the novelity of MTV, kids started buying songs that didn't get played on the local radio.
So even if there wasn't any evidence that P2P directly boosts sales of songs, CDs, etc, 50+ years of radio play has proven that point; listening to a song boosts its sales.
It has proven it to the point that many members of the RIAA have illegally (in the past and in the present) used a system called Payola, which pays radio stations to play songs by a particular artist repeatedly more than other artists for commerical gain; they do this because they believe the more their songs are played the more $$ they will make.
Copyright holders spend 100's of thousands to mulitple millions of dollars to produce "music videos", engage in Payola, advertise to DJs and radio station programmers, etc. all for the purpose of allowing the music to be played on the air or on TV/Cable all in the hope that people will buy the music. Clearly they could save those $$, let P2P do it's work, and accrue the savings in production, Payola, etc. to any lost of royalities.
In fairness not deserved by the RIAA, their is a difference between listening to a song on the radio and making a copy of it via P2P but in fairness to the public, owning a physical copy of a song is not the same as having a 3rd rate digital copy, that may or may not be 100% as the artist intended.
You could probably go 110 mph from the edge of NJ to Nevada but with all the sprawl in NY, NJ and Cali the rest of the trip would take a life time ;)
Given that they are not a monopoly, I think it's within their right to set up contracts the way they want. Before you think this is a Trolling comment. The other side of the coin is why would anyone in the world with other companies to choice from, be willing to sign that contract?
I certainly wouldn't. Let's hope this gets' some real main stream press.
The RIAA members would be selling more music if the didn't fight downloading.
Downloading has replaced Radio for many of our "youth" as how they learn about music. Based on why Radio is free, so should downloading.
Oh, and RIAA members need to find music that doesn't suck.
The "value" of patents to most companies is that they can tell their investors and shareholders they have one. It lulls those stakeholders into feeling that the business has a way of defending itself against would-be copycats.
There is a set fee for use of records in jukeboxes. It's fairly low and basically an artist can't prevent you from putting their record in your jukebox, as long as your paying that standard fee.
They are claiming the was given to them by the government, by the LOC. That is in fact the case. It is stupid but its' the case.
There are two solutions on the meta level...
#1 is more focus on Portfolio's of work that on tests, etc.
It's not wrong to use someone else's words, it's only wrong not to quote them...
#2 is better tools for quoting. When you cut and paste from the web to "your term paper" the cut and paste should include META data, about where you got the "data/words" from and should automatically create a "academically acceptable attribution."
When the issue is that you have copied an entire paper or sections of someone else's work, there is nothing technology can do, per se, this is a moral or ethnical issue; when you had to pay $$ and order a paper through the mail, this probably was a bit of a natural barrier to this behavior. But now that it's online its only human nature to "cheat."